And if you parents didn't bother to keep up with the documents? Or say, I dunno, fire, robbery, natural disaster. Not everyone can afford to have multiple back ups of stuff, or have access to safety deposit boxes.
For most people getting the stuff is easy, but the Constitution doesn't say that voting is a right for people that get stuff easily. And no matter what you might *want* the Constitution to reflect your views, what you think the constitution *ought* to say doesn't change what the constitution says. (and how the courts have interpreted it).

When the house was limited to 435 members, the number of people per representative began to grow. Now you have 435 divided among 320 million people, which leads to a heavier slant towards the smaller states.
For example the 5 states of Mt, ND, SD, ID, and WY have 16 EV for around 3.5 million people. Meanwhile CT, also around 3.5 million people has 7 EVs. So there is an imbalance of around 2.29:1.
My solution would be to keep the EC, but peg the number of EVs to 2 + statepop/100k. While that means we have a lot more EVs, it also means there is a much better balance between states. In the above example. The EV would become 45 EV for MT, SD, ND, ID, And WY, versus 37 for CT. Which would have an imbalance of 1.29:1.
The small states are still favored as per the idea of the Constitution, but the level is now reduced back to the original intent.

You aren't accounting for CO2 absorption by the oceans. Partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the CO2 concentration in the ocean (Henry's Law). IIRC, back of the envelope calculations shows about 40% of all CO2 output has been absorbed by the Oceans (assume an average mixing layer of 60 meters, and 70% of the surface area of the earth, also assume the atmosphere is well mixed for our estimate) you can hold ocean temperature constant to make life simpler, or you can increase the temp by a small amount to better refine the estimate. As for calculating the amount of CO2 released, we have pretty good estimates of Carbor released. Take that mass, convert to moles of CO2. Get the total mass of the atmosphere, the scale height is around 8 kilometers (if you want to determine the scale height yourself, be my guest) . Then use the average molecular mass of the atmosphere which is around 28.9 (dry atmosphere, accounting for water vapor is a hassle and for back of the envelope calculations, you can add it in if you want) the density of air is 1.3 kg/m^3) We now have the volume of the atmosphere and the densite. So we can calculate the mass of the atmosphere to compare against the mass of CO2 produced to get an estimate of the increase in CO2 for that time frame. It's not difficult to do and get a reasonable approximation. You'll find that the estimated increase in CO2 is greater than the measured increase, because of ocean absorption. And then that CO2 increase drives other reactions that end up lowering the pH of the oceans, which is overall bad for creatures that make shells. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

No, the $15K is to justify dropping the case by rending the whole situation moot and save the FBI from having a court decision against them. A court decision against them would resonate for years, so you drop the case, avoid that precedent. Then pick a different case against a company who doesn't have great lawyers. Win that case, and there you go, precedent that favors you.

Seriously? Do you even know why CO2 is a GHG? And if you say it's not, then please explain to me how CO2 doesn't absorb in regions of the IR spectrum that are otherwise transparent.
Do you know how ENSO works, and why wind stress forcing from ENSO can help sequester heat into the intermediate and Deep waters of the western Pacific during normal, and with greater intensity during LA Nina years? Do you understand how that slowing of the walker circulation can reverse that downwelling and pull all that sequestered heat back to the surface where it is then available for the lower troposphere.
Look, there are a number of climate skeptics in the Earth and Atmospheric sciences of various institutions, but even the out skeptical accept that *something* is happening. Hell I even managed to get Dr Judith Curry to agree with me in 2014, that the next few years would tell the story. If temps remained relatively level, then we were missing something. But if temps resumed their March upward, then even she said that would give strong evidence that the current models were more right than wrong.
You want to challenge the science, go for it. You want to derive your own models and see what happens, go for it! Otherwise you're just flapping your gums and wasting time while the adults are trying to figure out what the hell is going on and what we can do to further improve the models and better understand how bad we are fucking the planet up, and maybe, convince enough people that, while mankind won't die off if the temps go up 5 degrees C (and just for you, that's 9 degrees Fahrenheit), you'll see some massive displacement of atmospheric patterns, wildlife, human population displacement, crop disruptions as regions of best growth of certain crops shift dramatically.
So yeah, I doubt you'll listen, but maybe other people who read the thread will take it on themselves to look deeper, learn more, and decide based on accurate information.
Things are grim enough I don't need to bias a damn thing to make my case.

Of note, the use of GPS for surveying sea surface height has proposed or experimented with for a number of years (Cardellach, Estel; Martin-Neira, Manuel., April 2010). It might be because they've moved beyond 'proof of concept', but I think to say they discovered it is a bit strong. I've even found papers detailing the experimental use of GPS satellites to determine sea surface heights as far back as 2001 (Martin-Neira, M; Caparrini, M; Font-Rossello, J; Lannelongue, S; Vallmitjana, C S, 2001). The bggest change might be a reduction of errors, going from (30cm errors in 2000 to 5 - 15cm in 2009. If they've managed to further reduce the size of the errors then they're onto something really big. If they've just found a more efficient method of measuring sea surface heights in the open ocean, well that's pretty cool, but I'm not sure it's quite a game breaker.

As far as sea surface rise being a hoax, that's a silly statement, after all the empirical evidence is pretty strong, We have long term gauges that have been operating for centuries in a number of areas, and excepting for regions of crustal rebound, raw sea level rise is consistent with expectations if additional heat was being pumped into and inceasing the depth of the thermocline..

The volume of water coming from continental ice caps Greenland, Antarctica), will increase the volume of the ocean in a 1:1 ratio. We're not talking about melting sea ice. It would be like taking an ice cube and setting on top of a funnel over a glass of water. The ice melts and flows into the glass. Raising the level of water.
Incidentally, it also cools the water, but because the volume change of water is a very small fraction compared to the volume change from the melting ice.
For comparison, the average ocean depth is about 3000 meters, if the entire Greenland ice cap suddenly melted and flowed into the ocean, it would raise the ocean by ~2 meters or so. So you're looking at a 0.015

Here, let me get you started...
A nice climate archive to start
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-...
If you want to do some validation checking you can go through all the individual stations and check the data. One place is:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
Another if you don't trust NOAA and want the absolute rawest data:
http://mesowest.utah.edu/
Some of your questions on why certain corrections were made are explained here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni...
And I find it incredibly sad that you think very little science has been done. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take the time to read some papers and do some of your own independent research.

Well El Nino is actually a change in the Walker circulation brought on by a relaxation (or in extreme cases a reversal) of the trade winds over the equatorial Pacific region. This let's the water that had been piling up in the west pacific begin shifting back to the east. Which shifts the convection from the heated water to the east as well. You also have the upwelling along the west coast of south America also slow or cease.
From there the changes in SSTs and convection will shift the various weather patterns. It's something of a cascading effect, which shows up most in the winter time air for the US.
El Nino (and LA Nina) are more than weather, at least in a classic sense that it takes a lot of work to take out the shorter term variabilities to reveal the long term pattern. And when you do, you're left with a 6 to 9 month El Nino phase and 2 to 6 for the neutral and LA Nina phase.
Now one of the next questions trying to be ironed out, what effect will the change in climate have on the walker circulation and the ENSO system.

Surely you must realize that satellites do not measure temperature directly. Instead they measure various wavelengths of light, and then use a weighting system to interpret the data Of note, most of the spectral readings are of the lower troposphere and *not* the surface. Additionally, there is a major issue of contamination from cloud cover when trying to use satellite data. That you put forth the idea that there are no revision or interpolation or adjustments shows an appalling lack of understanding of exactly how satellite meteorology works.

Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday May 13, 2010 @04:16PM
from the good-enough-for-the-likes-of-you dept.

John Bayko writes "Mentioned on Slashdot a couple of years ago, the drug dichloroacetate (DCA) has finally finished its first clinical trial against brain tumors in humans. Drug companies weren't willing to test a drug they could not patent, so money was raised in the community through donations, auctions, and finally government support, but the study was still limited to five patients. It showed extremely positive results in four of them. This episode raises the question of what happens to all the money donated to Canadian and other cancer societies, and especially the billions spent buying merchandise with little pink ribbons on it, if not to actual cancer research like this."

An anonymous reader writes: As if it weren't enough that one bogus ATM was discovered collecting card details at the Riviera in Las Vegas where Black Hat and Defcon attendees were staying, one presenter suspects that ATMs at the Rio were compromised as well. Chris Paget tried to take out $200 and the machine never gave him the money despite debiting his account. At least five other people were affected. The hotel staff allowed the machines to keep running and threatened that Paget could be prosecuted for vandalism if he unplugged them. The Secret Service confirmed on Monday that they're investigating. It could be an inside job, or the machines may be infected with malware, as was found earlier this year in Eastern Europe.

But "Move or Die" can mean many things. First you can move your body: exercising in the simplest ways. Walk a mile when things are slow. If you have time to do push ups and sits ups at work, then you have time to walk as well. Work out every day you aren't at work. Accept that your life is about Work and working out and that you don't have time for anything else. If something else is getting in the way of working out, then accept that working out isn't important enough. unless you're willing to do the second or third move.

Next "Move where you work": you have to decide if you wish to continue working at a company that appears to have no concern about your physical or mental health and well being. The Company may not care if you're burned out and dying from heart disease in 20 years, but you should be. If you can't do the first or third "Move" you have to decide if the loss of physical health is worth the financial compensation you get.

Finally: "Move where you live": If the first two options aren't viable, then perhaps you should consider that a 90 minute commute is insane under these circumstances. I personally have an hour commute after a 9 hour day. And I'm seriously considering moving much closer. If you're in a house that's devalued because of the economy, then it sucks, but you have to decide if the financial hit you take from moving (and remember, you'll save a ton on gas every month not driving that 100+ mile trip every day).

In the end if your health is that important for you, you'll have to figure out what sort of move you want to make, and if none of them are viable, then accept you'll be slowly dying until you change your mind.

The Bad Astronomer writes: "In Texas (where the head of the State Board of Education thinks the Earth is 6000 years old) a state legislator wants the ironically-named Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant — wait for it, wait for it — a Masters degree in science. In fact, the bill submitted to the Texas congress would make it legal for any private group calling themselves educational to be able to grant advanced degrees in science. So now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer."